Nancy Jane Geiger appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that Geiger’s action is barred by Heck v. *2 Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Beets v. County of Los Angeles , 669 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2012), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave to proceed IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe , 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Geiger’s action is Heck- barred because success on her claims would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of her infraction conviction, and she failed to allege that her conviction had been invalidated. See Whitaker v. Garcetti , 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (irrespective of the relief sought, Heck bars § 1983 claims which would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction has been invalidated); see also Lyall v. City of Los Angeles , 807 F.3d 1178, 1190-92 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding plaintiff’s claims were Heck- barred where they necessarily called into question his infraction conviction and he failed to challenge the conviction prior to filing the § 1983 suit). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Geiger leave to proceed IFP. See O’Loughlin , 920 F.2d at 617.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-56865

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).